Alright, so I have been diligently studying the JFK case lately and, specifically, scrutinizing and cataloging the available 'JFK murder in Dealey Plaza' imagery. Well, not ALL of it (yet), but a pretty sizeable bunch of it. It has been a truly fascinating journey - trudging around the labyrinth made up of countless websites dealing with the JFK event. The plethora of diverging theories around this (utterly unsolved) case must be the most mind-numbing roller-coaster you'd EVER wanna ride! So be warned - and think twice before plunging into the JFK 'conspiracy spiderweb' - as I just did. It is a VERY time-consuming affair !

What emerges is that, for 50 years or so, people have been hotly debating and dissecting the extant film clips and still images of the event. One could rightfully say - only exaggerating a little - that "every single pixel" of the available imagery (purportedly shot that day by 'casual bystanders') has been discussed to death. On the basis of those film clips and still pictures released in relation to the JFK event, a zillion theories have been promulgated - all in conflict and 'in competition' with each other.

But - as it appears, and just as was the case with the 9/11 imagery, the VERY EXISTENCE of this vast picture-pool depicting this brief event in time has never been questioned. The sheer multitude of bystanders armed with cameras who, we are told, "just happened" to stand in the vicinity of that short stretch of tarmac, snapped the defining instants (what are known in photojournalist-circles as "MONEY SHOTS") of this historical moment in time is mind-boggling - it is quite frankly absurd and beyond belief. Beyond belief? Well, judge for yourself. Do not shoot the messenger, as they say!

Here's a Dealey Plaza 'diagram' that I've put together (using a current Google Street Map view) illustrating the apparent/ approximate positions of the 30 (yes, THIRTY!) assorted cameramen - camerawomen / housewives - who supposedly snapped a "money shot" of the JFK event. Now, this is actually an 'incomplete" list, if you will: I have purposely left out many other alleged Dealey Plaza cameramen, who didn't really catch the most crucial instants of the "JFK shooting" - and so I've only listed those who, within +/- 20 seconds of "JFK's last breath in Dealey Plaza", captured a potential Pulitzer-prizeworthy 'money shot' of the event:

I will just leave you with this for now - to ponder about: is it credible that all of these 30+ bystanders, back in 1963, captured on camera the passage of the president's motorcade on this short Dallas road-section? Or may this epochal "murder in Dealey Plaza" - and its related imagery - more likely have been entirely staged / orchestrated from scratch?

Can the above sun angle even be possible - at 12:30PM on November 22 in Dallas?I know you've already moved on from this question but when I read it, it prompted me to do a 'quick' study just to see. Not that this study is necessary based on the examples you already dug up, but what the sun system appears to be telling us is that the motorcade and the running guys are totally out of time and maybe, just maybe the Zapruder money shot was filmed on or about 12:30 PM sometime in mid-November (November 11 on-screen ratio closely matches the shadow above John's aching head). Note: the shadows in this study were cast on a perfectly level surface and I have not personally verified the accuracy of the software.

Nick Java wrote:I know you've already moved on from this question but when I read it, it prompted me to do a 'quick' study just to see. Not that this study is necessary based on the examples you already dug up, but what the sun system appears to be telling us is that the motorcade and the running guys are totally out of time and maybe, just maybe the Zapruder money shot was filmed on or about 12:30 PM sometime in mid-November (November 11 on-screen ratio closely matches the shadow above John's aching head).

Thanks, Nick - much appreciated!

And yes, at closer inspection (and that's why I asked for help) I agree that the shadow above John's aching head (meant to be that of Beverly Oliver, aka "the Babushka Lady") may be reasonably accurate after all. So this is not a valid point to make regarding the bizarreness of the Zap-rude clip.

Loving the clarification on what is or is not admissible strangeness for the average home sleuth. We need to put our best points forward at all times. Luckily we have this playground to figure out what those even are. Thanks for the help, Nick Java.

Even the "master of disasters" himself is tired of the multiple shooter jfk assassination scenarios. You see back in '78 Teddy had his chief counselor, Kenny, review the work of the HSCA; and our heroic special master determined that the jfk assassination was, indeed, the work of a lone nut. And Kenny will also have you multiple shooter conspiracy theorists out there know that the Kennedy clan agreed with his assessment -- so there.

You don't have to take my word for it either; here's Kenny talking his shit live on cspan.

By the way, Kenny ain't no jfk assassination theory dilettante; he was chosen by Bob Bennett to be one of the three arbitrators that decided that the government should pay the Zapruder heirs $16 million dollars for old Abe's film.

[ADMIN: I have taken the liberty of highlighting and correcting your first post here, due to its numerous legibility problems. Please, in the future, proofread and format before posting. You don't have to take all my corrections as gospel, of course, but it is at least an early guideline for you to consider. If your writing doesn't improve, we may have to issue you a warning. Thank you for your contributions. What you say makes sense; it just needs a tiny amount of extra formating. -hp]

The Zapruder film is a very impressive work of art. I think it might show off some kind of front projection technique like that discussed by Jay Weidner with regards to the Apollo Moon landing and Kubrick's 2001.

If it's not that particular special effect method, its something along the same Hollywood lines.

"zapruder film stabilized.MP4" or similar is what to look up. Or any high quality version of the film.

Look at the car door(s) under Kennedy's arm and Connelly. Notice the reflections are not of the crowd but of the limousine and entourage, including the motorcycle.

It's the reflection of the scene projected over itself. Or at least that's how it looks. No parallax and now this. What other little tells are there?

Whatever happened, it was not shown on any screen we've seen.

And looks like JFK was in on the act with the rest in the car. Looks like this could have been re-filmed or filmed on a set.

The old 1902 film Trip To The Moon clearly shows what film effects have been capable of for a long time. The end especially, when the moon primitives turn into still photographs and grab onto the escaping rocket capsule. This shows us that what we've seen in terms of special effects has been a matter of choice. Something like the Bomber in Dr. Strangelove [sic] not looking very convincing ... is simply another choice. [What do you mean by 'is simply another choice'? -hp]

I'm sorry about that. I'll try to avoid any future legibility problems.Feel free to delete any of my posts if you wish. Just please repost the information yourself.I won't be offended. I respect what you guys are doing here.

[ADMIN: Whew! It's fine. Thank you for acknowledging our spelling/grammar policies. I was getting worried, running around the forum chasing down your posts and correcting them. It's not the rules we enjoy having, but they are necessary in order to prevent our forum from collapsing into the typical 'social media' word salad. -hp]

I'm stating that the film makers can composite a B17 Bomber in front of a sky and make it look as 'believable' as they want.Trip To The Moon shows us what could be done in 1902. What I'm getting at is 60 years later they could do even better effects and they chose not to.

Yes, I agree with your assessment. Another possibility is that they didn't choose to be bad but simply lost the talent.

There are indeed only a limited number of especially talented artists born to each skill set in each generation. Doesn't it seem that way? It is beyond any of us to control. It could be that, while the military tries very hard to acquire the best talents of each generation, they cannot always do so. It is also possible that such a pool simply isn't available after the 'masters' of antiquated techniques simply die off, leaving a dearth.

It would be especially challenging if — due to whatever inability for military types to empathize and relate to other humans, they simply don't have an effective mentorship program — a lot of knowledge just fades away in a number of souls who depart this world. The generation gap effects everyone. It also effects technology. Something that melded well in the 50's couldn't be "handled" by any kind of computer of today; similarly, techniques of today may not work in all the old technology.

It could also be that one group covets a talent, which is unavailable to another group tasked with an assignment that would best be accomplished by that unavailable talent. Who knows?

I’ve come to the conclusion that most of what we see on screen is fake. We have been seeing augmented reality. What is labeled as real isn’t. It hasn’t been real since the days of newsreels and radio. The elite have always funded artists to create the world as we see it. They have being playing this game since the dawn of culture itself. Word of mouth becomes reading a newspaper. Newspaper accounts are easier to fake than photographs. Photographs can be manipulated and have been for a long time.

Hollywood is more military than anything else. The craftsmen working behind the scenes are the real magicians. They work on things labeled fiction and some work also on things labeled fact. Some of them work for the aerospace industry. Research the history of animation and film. Little things come up like Howard Hughes making films and building airplanes. Joseph Kennedy running a film studio. 3d animation was another tool used initially for the aerospace industry.

The techniques used to produce fake imagery include model use, image projection and photo compositing. When compositing images color of the foreground image needs to relate to the color in the background. The cast of the color over the whole image should be consistent to achieve a level of believability. The resolution (not focus) of the foreground and background images have to relate or something looks funny. The film stock used has to be similar in look. The eye can see the difference. This is what I mean by choices. If the lighting is different between the foreground object and the background, it shows.

The computer simply made the work easier to do. The same techniques are the basis for photo and video manipulation software. What could be done with film in darkroom, is easily achieved with software.

Last edited by ProperGander on Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:55 am, edited 2 times in total.